Civil society providing illegal abortions. It’s been done before (in fact, I think Charles has an excellent post about the history of such actions), and can propably be provided relatively safely.

Yes, and thanks. You’re probably thinking of Jane, an underground abortion network run by Chicago’s Women Liberation from the late 1960s to 1972. I talk about it (or rather, quote a long passage from Susan Brownmiller talking about it) at GT 2006-01-22: Roe v. Wade Day #33. Kate Kirtz and Nell Lundy made a documentary about it in 1996 called Jane: An Abortion Service, which (full disclosure) I haven’t seen, but which has netted a fair amount of critical praise. NPR Marketplace did a series of segments on Underground Economies back in 2001, which included a segment about Jane by Laura Kaplan, a participant in the Jane collective, which you can listen to online using RealAudio.

There are some organizations, usually called abortion funds, already working to provide local women with money, and sometimes transportation and lodging, for abortions. The National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) acts as a national umbrella federation for spreading the word and helping new funds get started and coordinate with each other. They’re probably one of the best and most important abortion groups that are working today. There’s currently one abortion fund in South Dakota, based out of Sioux Falls. They don’t have a website of their own, but if you want to donate you can contact them using the information from NNAF.

So just what is the decentralist and libertarian response to this move by South Dakota? Should the feds intervene?

Civil society providing illegal abortions. It’s been done before (in fact, I think Charles has an excellent post about the history of such actions), and can propably be provided relatively safely. Less logistically difficult tactics may involve simply raising money to take women who need abortions out of state.

This is definitely a bad thing, but if Pro-choicers in and around South Dakota can co-ordinate, and with some financial support (perhaps from the various ineffective pro-choice lobby groups that are swimming in cash and will no doubt spend the next several years begging the feds to reverse the decision until things get worse and South Dakota is forgotten), the problem can be addressed through direct action, rather than government intervention.

So just what is the decentralist and libertarian response to this move by South Dakota? Should the feds intervene?

Are you asking this as a matter of principle or a matter of strategy?

If it’s a question of principle, then the Feds should intervene (on libertarian grounds) and the government of South Dakota should secede (on decentralist grounds) if they don’t like it.

Of course, since the arbitrary government of South Dakota deserves no more special deference than the arbitrary federal government, women seeking abortions in South Dakota and doctors aiming to provide them should be able to secede from South Dakota if they don’t like its asinine forced pregnancy statute.

I’m not holding my breath waiting for any of these outcomes, though.

If it’s a question of strategy, then we have to cope with the fact that the Feds are at best unreliable and the right of either state or individual secession is unlikely to be respected anytime soon. I think a review of recent history would suggest that we need a lot of different strategies for each of a lot of different cases, and that building an autonomous movement with a commitment to feminist agitation and organized direct action is a much better route than either (1) wringing our hands and begging for (male-dominated) public approval, or (2) lobbying the (male-dominated) goverment to try to persuade them to stop being so misogynist and so statist. Besides having feminist reasons for liking this strategy, I also have libertarian and decentralist reasons for liking it, since it takes the emphasis off of so-called community standards and off of the government, and puts it on individual women’s demands to have their natural rights over their own bodies respected.

This is all presuming that abortion is a woman’s natural right and that forced pregnancy is on a par (in terms of kind, if not degree) with slavery. I haven’t argued for that conclusion here, but I think it follows straightforwardly from libertarian principles. See the comments on Roe v. Wade #33, Hello, Birmingham, and Why We Marched for some parts of the argument on that.

]]>By: DainDainhttp://www.myspace.com/mupetblasttag:radgeek.com,2006://geekery_today.20060308233504#comment-14112006-03-10T05:47:21Z2006-03-10T05:47:21ZSo just what is the decentralist and libertarian response to this move by South Dakota? Should the feds intervene?
]]>By: Otto KernerOtto Kernertag:radgeek.com,2006://geekery_today.20060308233504#comment-14102006-03-10T04:07:02Z2006-03-10T04:07:02ZWell, yeah. Just about any system but the one we have involving an uberpowerful POTUS will encourage at least a little bit more straightforwardness.
]]>By: StefanStefantag:radgeek.com,2006://geekery_today.20060308233504#comment-14092006-03-09T21:37:51Z2006-03-09T21:37:51Z“I think Scott McClellan must have one of the most contemptible, soul-destroying jobs on the planet. I wish one day the reporters would all just walk out on him instead of sitting there listening to his endless mealy-mouthed effrontery.”

Amen to that! On reflection however it seems likely that private defense agencies will also have spokesmen to talk to media agents. Perhaps in a free market there will less incentives to dodge and dissemble?